Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues Active Transportation Plan discussion; asks for more study on Athetherton, El Camino and school-area safety
Summary
Council heard staff recommendations on bikeway classifications, sidewalks, and intersection treatments and directed staff to return with design details, ordinance options for frontage/daylighting, and corridor coordination with neighboring jurisdictions; members requested additional policy sessions before ordinance drafting.
The council continued a study session on the town’s Active Transportation Plan on July 1, reviewing bikeway classifications, proposed sidewalk routes, and intersection treatments and asking staff to return with more detailed designs and ordinance options.
Robert and other staff summarized changes since the last session, including removing Athetherton Avenue from a proposed class‑2 bike lane and shifting some Glenwood recommendations to class‑3 shared use. Staff detailed recommended walkways (including Oak Grove between Edge Road and Middlefield and targeted walkways around school frontages) and said some proposed segments were removed after council feedback.
Staff outlined an intersection “toolbox” — advanced yield markings, high‑visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, rapid flashing beacons, hybrid beacons and signals — and emphasized that certain devices require warrant analyses. "We wouldn't stripe a crosswalk without some sort of traffic control on Athetherton," staff told the council, urging a warrant study for Selby/Athetherton rather than striping an uncontrolled crossing.
The council debated corridor‑level versus site‑by‑site approaches. Several members asked staff to treat Athetherton Avenue as a corridor for study (Selby, Austin, Elena and Barry) rather than adding piecemeal devices. On El Camino Riale, staff said corridor studies led by SAMTRANS and neighboring jurisdictions will evaluate alternatives (sidewalks on both sides, buffered or separated bike lanes or a road diet) and that the town will coordinate but is unlikely to fund major corridor reconstruction alone.
School‑area safety and bike facilities were a particular focus. Members discussed protected corners, delineators or mountable curbs near school crossings after staff referenced a past fatality at a location; some members favored extending green bike boxes and visible pavement markings rather than introducing curb elements that could create new hazards.
On policy, staff outlined options for developer‑frontage requirements, daylighting (clear zones near intersections), permeable or stabilized walkway materials, possible developer fee programs, and grandfathering/transition periods for existing frontages. Councilors requested more policy guidance and an additional meeting to get into ordinance specifics before staff prepares code changes.
Next steps: staff will prepare prioritized design options, ordinance alternatives for frontage/daylighting and continue coordination with Menlo Park, the county and regional partners on El Camino and Ravenswood intersections. Council asked that staff return with the more detailed material and schedule follow‑up sessions.
